Get 1 year of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Sunday, September 26, 2021











HOATalk is a free service of Community123.com:

Easy to use website tools to help your board
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: What is a "structure" to an HOA?
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Author Messages
AdamL1
(Idaho)

Posts:109


08/31/2021 4:46 PM  
So got a question here. What is a "structure" mean to you? What happens if the HOA determines that 'widget' that's in your backyard that no one else can see, is a structure and needs to be submitted to the ACC for approval?


I just got a letter now from the HOA stating that they are determining the beehive in my backyard to be an "above ground structure" that must be approved. This is quite interesting, because there is no definition of "above ground structure" or anything similar in our CCR's. There's a section that talks about "accessory structures" like playscapes and basketball hoops, but nothing about 'above ground structures.' Additionally, this novel interpretation seems to then open up the HOA to a lot of whatabouts....birdhouses, patio tables, decorative things in people's back yards, etc.

In addition, they stated that they must be removed in order to comply with "the HOA Member Resolution" from our Annual Meeting, and then maybe I can submit a request to hold a hearing to determine if the bees shall be allowed.

Any thoughts?


-------------------
4.1.2 Architectural Committee Review. No Improvements which will
be visible above ground or which will ultimately affect the visibility of any
above ground Improvement shall be built, erected, placed or materially altered
on or removed from the Property unless and until the building plans,
specifications, and plot ,plan have been reviewed in advance by the
Architectural Committee (and, if required, by an applicable Local Architectural
Committee pursuant to paragraph 11.10) and the same have been approved
in writing. The review and approval or disapproval may be based upon the
following factors: design and style elements, mass and form, topography,
setbacks, finished ground elevations, architectural symmetry, drainage, color,
materials, including mandatory wood shake roofing material, physical or
aesthetic impacts on other properties, including Common Areas, artistic
conformity to the terrain and the other Improvements on the Property, and
any and all other factors which the Architectural Committee, in its reasonable
discretion, deem relevant. Said requirements as to the approval of the
architectural design shall apply only to the exterior appearance of the
Improvements. This Master Declaration is not intended to serve as authority
for the Architectural Committee to control the interior layout or design of
residential structures except to the extent incidentally necessitated by use,
size and height restrictions.
AugustinD


Posts:1585


08/31/2021 5:57 PM  
Posted By AdamL1 on 08/31/2021 4:46 PM

-------------------
4.1.2 Architectural Committee Review. No Improvements which will
be visible above ground or which will ultimately affect the visibility of any
above ground Improvement shall be built,[snip for brevity]
Do the CC&Rs define "Improvement"?

Funny how it is capitalized throughout this covenant.
BenA2
(Texas)

Posts:1003


08/31/2021 6:07 PM  
This may come down to how your state courts have ruled on ambiguous CC&Rs. Is there a court precedent that says that they rule in favor of the HOA or the homeowner? This is probably a question for an attorney. Absent any other information, I think I would tell them that you disagree with their definition of "above ground structure" and keep your beehive. If HOAs could just change the rules by reinterpreting them, there would be no limit to their power.
AugustinD


Posts:1585


08/31/2021 6:29 PM  
One can google on

"No Improvements which will be visible above ground"


and a bunch of Idaho HOA Declarations instantly come up. All of them define "Improvements" in their "definitions" sections. All of the definitions are vague and yes ambiguous in my opinion as to whether a beehive qualifies as "improvement."

Seriously, AdamL1 you did not think to check the definitions section of the CC&Rs and quote the definition of "Improvement" here?

You need an attorney to hold your hand through this.

For now: I agree with BenA2. The courts say that ambiguity will be interpreted in favor of free enjoyment of property. Furthermore, as is obvious and as AdamL1 pointed out, there are likely a buzillion other items in HOA owners' backyards that were not approved by this HOA's ARC. Hence a defense of "selective enforcement" by AdamL1 is likely appropriate.



MaxB4


Posts:1211


08/31/2021 6:33 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 08/31/2021 5:57 PM
Posted By AdamL1 on 08/31/2021 4:46 PM

-------------------
4.1.2 Architectural Committee Review. No Improvements which will
be visible above ground or which will ultimately affect the visibility of any
above ground Improvement shall be built,[snip for brevity]
Do the CC&Rs define "Improvement"?

Funny how it is capitalized throughout this covenant.



Do you know why it is capitalized?
AugustinD


Posts:1585


08/31/2021 6:36 PM  
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/31/2021 6:33 PM

Do you know why it is capitalized?
Can you spell "hijacker"?
MaxB4


Posts:1211


08/31/2021 6:39 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 08/31/2021 6:36 PM
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/31/2021 6:33 PM

Do you know why it is capitalized?
Can you spell "hijacker"?



??????????????

I posted my question BEFORE yours came through.
MaxB4


Posts:1211


08/31/2021 7:08 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 08/31/2021 6:36 PM
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/31/2021 6:33 PM

Do you know why it is capitalized?
Can you spell "hijacker"?



You act like a lawyer, you write like a lawyer, you present yourself on this forum to know more than anyone else and, well, you can't stand anyone having a different point of view. I think you went to law school, but couldn't pass the bar, maybe worse. Who reads case law, yet is not in the legal field?

I hate lawyers, I despise lawyers, I think lawyers are the scum of the earth and I particularly hate anyone who tries and passes themselves off as a lawyer.

Enough said
AdamL1
(Idaho)

Posts:109


08/31/2021 7:35 PM  
great constructive criticism. I've found "Improvement" defined, and updated twice through Amendments:

------------------------------------------------
"Improvement" shall mean any structure, facility or system, or other improvement or object, whether permanent or temporary, which is erected, constructed or placed upon, under or in any portion of the Property, including but not limited to buildings, fences, streets, drives, driveways, sidewalks, bicycle paths, curbs, landscaping, wildlife habitat improvements, signs, lights, streetlights, mail boxes, gates, storm drains' and storm drain facilities, electrical lines, pipes, pumps, ditches,
---------------------------------------------------


So "including but not limited to" gives a large wiggle room, but its clear in my situation there's selective and targeted enforcement and sure as hell, the HOA will not be able to produce ACC requests for the numerous 'Improvements' around the neighborhood, including the very 'unique' yard art and statues in the HOA President's front yard.
AugustinD


Posts:1585


08/31/2021 7:48 PM  
Posted By AdamL1 on 08/31/2021 7:35 PM
great constructive criticism. I've found "Improvement" defined, and updated twice through Amendments:

------------------------------------------------
"Improvement" shall mean any structure, facility or system, or other improvement or object, whether permanent or temporary, which is erected, constructed or placed upon, under or in any portion of the Property, including but not limited to buildings, fences, streets, drives, driveways, sidewalks, bicycle paths, curbs, landscaping, wildlife habitat improvements, signs, lights, streetlights, mail boxes, gates, storm drains' and storm drain facilities, electrical lines, pipes, pumps, ditches,
---------------------------------------------------


So "including but not limited to" gives a large wiggle room,
In my experience the "wiggle room" is a large part of the problem for the HOA's position. When CC&Rs give a HOA Board or HOA ACC discretion (a.k.a. "wiggle room"), said discretion must be exercised "reasonably." What "reasonably" is depends on each case. On the one hand, of course, the HOA is being unreasonable here. On the other hand, this does not matter. You are up against a corporation with a hired gun. The corporation has more resources than you. It's not justice the courts award. What courts award often is simply recognition of who has more money to waste on attorneys.

I am pondering what to recommend as a response to the ARC's request that you submit an application and obtain approval. Maybe either:

-- send a very short, very polite, non-snarky letter* saying pretty much what BenA2 and I posted above, along with any other comments that strike you as worthwhile?

-- or go ahead and submit an application and let them turn it down?



* I mean it, AdamL1. There is no telling how serious these idiots are about dragging you to court. It does not matter that many of us think you would prevail. If you have to defend yourself for the next two years in court, it will be hell. You are not guaranteed an award of the fees you pay an attorney. And if you go to court, you do need an attorney. No layperson could possibly know the tricks attorneys can use to "legitimately" win a court case and legitimately harass you.

Even worse, this HOA could start fining you, and then you get to drag them to court. It is a lose-lose proposition.
CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:2393


09/01/2021 5:26 AM  
A "structure" is any man-made, non-naturally occurring object built or placed on land where it did not previously exist. It's pretty broad and ambiguous because no language can address all possible variables in any situation. A man-made bee hive is a structure, a hive constructed by the bees is not (in the context of an HOA).

I was thinking the other night about the apparent contradiction in courts' preference for free use of the land in HOAs. Here you have a legal framework (governing docs and state/federal laws) whose provisions are enforced by a board with a fiduciary duty to act in the HOA's best interests. You also have homeowners with no fiduciary duty to the HOA (ie., to their neighbors/business-and-legal partners) who are allowed to do as they please. It's like you try to build this water-tight structure while allowing the users of the structure to knock holes into it. This does not work.
AdamL1
(Idaho)

Posts:109


09/01/2021 7:15 AM  

regarding fair use and inconsistent/arbitrary/capricious enforcement....its clear this is directed just at me....curious if anyone else has raised this type of argument back to their HOA. For example, a bbq grill must fall under the definition of "Improvement" but no one is submitting an ACC request to put a grill in their backyard. I know, its absurd...

Agreed, its time to start looking at an attorney.
SheliaH
(Indiana)

Posts:4175


09/01/2021 7:20 AM  
Usually, when I hear structure, I think of sheds, swimming pools, cabanas, and that type of thing, but since you and I both know that beehive wasn't there when you bought your home, it could be argued this IS a structure. At least that would be my position, based on the photos I've seen of a beehive belonging to a now-retired co-worker (he has a small business selling honey).

This is really getting redundant, with you pulling this and that section out of your CCRs to justify your beehive. Everyone will have various opinions on the subject and I hope they're useful to you, but you really need to start preparing for your hearing with the board on this matter. We don't live in your community and it's high time you go to an attorney for help on making your arguments. While you're tussling on the legalities of it all, you might also consider some of the arguments against the thing some of your neighbors bought up during that annual meeting and come up with ways to address those concerns. Even if you think the board put them up to it, you'll need to address it nonetheless if you want to have a chance at succeeding.
AugustinD


Posts:1585


09/01/2021 7:33 AM  
Posted By AdamL1 on 09/01/2021 7:15 AM
regarding fair use and inconsistent/arbitrary/capricious enforcement....its clear this is directed just at me....curious if anyone else has raised this type of argument back to their HOA. For example, a bbq grill must fall under the definition of "Improvement" but no one is submitting an ACC request to put a grill in their backyard. I know, its absurd...

Agreed, its time to start looking at an attorney.
"Fair use" is a legal term from copyright law. For the purposes of searching the net and case law, you mean "free enjoyment of property" and similar phrases.

It's also a general rule from the case law on the law of contracts that, when language in a contract is ambiguous, the language is interpreted against the party who wrote the contract.

As applied to HOAs, the party "who wrote the contract" is seen as the HOA corporation.

Yes, bbq grills are "structures." The same is so for lawn chairs, bird baths, tomato plant stakes, and kiddie pools. According to this Board, these all require approval. Yes its absurd and beautifully in your favor.

I am wondering why they are homed in on you. Prior to the board coming after your bees, were you 'poking the bear' in general?

What are people putting or not putting in their backyards at this HOA? At this point I hope your neighborhood isn't having a Stepford Wives' feel.

I suspect that nationwide, the courts end up time and again not favoring language on "structures" yada like that in AdamL1's covenants.
CarissaM


Posts:0


09/01/2021 8:04 AM  
STRUCTURE. That which is built or constructed.

I used the Florida Building code definition since we do not have a definition of structure in our documents. So sure, your beehive is a structure based on what I refer to as a structure and using FBC (I know you're not in FL but hey you're just looking for opinions right?).

These bees, man, I am SO GLAD we don't have a beehive issue in our neighborhood!
CarissaM


Posts:0


09/01/2021 8:08 AM  
I have to know; what's the very 'unique' yard art and statues in the HOA President's front yard?
AugustinD


Posts:1585


09/01/2021 8:10 AM  
Here are 2019 and 2015 Idaho Supreme Court decisions that I think give one a fair idea of how Idaho courts think about HOA covenants that limit xyz; when a covenant is ambiguous and when it is not; ambiguities being resolved in favor of free enjoyment of land; and so on:

https://casetext.com/case/eagle-springs-homeowners-assn-v-rodina

https://casetext.com/case/greenfield-v-wurmlinger-1

To say the least, the many other Idaho appeals and Supreme Court decisions that the decisions above cite are instructive as well. Both the above decisions feature the same precedent concerning ambiguities and "free use of the land." From the Eagle Spring decision, with ellipses used for readability:

"Restrictive covenants, which restrict the uses to which a party may put his or her property, are valid and enforceable." ... But such covenants are "in derogation of the common law right of a person to use land for all lawful purposes," so this Court will not construe them "to extend by implication any restriction not clearly expressed in the covenants." ... "All doubts and ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the free use of land." ... In other words, "restrictions that are found to be clearly expressed in the Restrictive Covenants are to be applied against the free use of land, while restrictions that are not clearly expressed will be resolved in favor of the free use of land." ...
AdamL1
(Idaho)

Posts:109


09/01/2021 9:36 AM  
@AugustinD
Really interesting finds. The second case from Eagle though I'm not sure I follow...
--> person doing a fence project, but the HOA says they never approved it. Court sided with the HOA and appeals court affirms the ruling. But the Appeals Court references that free use is preferred and that ambiguous CCR's are bad.
AugustinD


Posts:1585


09/01/2021 10:22 AM  
Posted By AdamL1 on 09/01/2021 9:36 AM
@AugustinD
Really interesting finds. The second case from Eagle though I'm not sure I follow...
--> person doing a fence project, but the HOA says they never approved it. Court sided with the HOA and appeals court affirms the ruling. But the Appeals Court references that free use is preferred and that ambiguous CCR's are bad.
The Eagle Springs HOA won the case at the trial court level on "summary judgment." The latter means there were no facts that were really in dispute. The case law, statutes and application of the covenants is all that is in dispute. The appeals courts agreed that the HOA was correct in what it did and in its legal arguments. From the summary of the Eagle Springs HOA v. Rodina case:

Rodina asserted, among other defenses, that the HOA approved his project and waived the right to enforce certain provisions of the subdivision’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions ("CC&Rs"). The district court awarded summary judgment in favor of the HOA and granted injunctive relief. We affirm, finding that the HOA did not approve his project as built and that Rodina failed to show that a genuine issue of material fact precluded the award of summary judgment against him.

At some point owner Rodina appears to have raised some arguments about ambiguities in the covenants, all so he could keep his fence and wall. But the courts here rejected those arguments. The courts found no ambiguities existed.

For our (my?) purposes in this thread, as I try to teach a bit, what the court decided is not as important as the tools the trial court and appeals courts used in coming to a decision. The courts in Eagle considered ambiguities in the covenants. The courts found no ambiguities in the relevant covenants. The courts therefore rejected this particular defense of owner Rodina. The courts then moved onto the next arguments each side was making.

To me, one of the questions to consider in AdamL1's case is: Would a court find there were ambiguities in the covenant concerning "Improvements"? Maybe.

I post this material to help people prepare for a meeting with an attorney. There's no way one can grasp the meaning of everything case law says without three years in law school, passing the bar, et cetera. But one can often get the gist of general rules case law has made over the years. And one of those rules is: Where there is ambiguity in a covenant, the ambiguity is interpreted in favor of free use of land.
AugustinD


Posts:1585


09/01/2021 10:26 AM  
AdamL1, I think you should go ahead and submit an application for your hives. I know this may seem silly. But I think it is the correct next step as the HOA likely prepares to go on the offense and you prepare your defense. I think it's a waste of time to fight the HOA's mere request for your application. Fight the (likely) rejection of your application.

Or do not rule out moving.
AdamL1
(Idaho)

Posts:109


09/01/2021 10:47 AM  
Posted By AugustinD on 09/01/2021 10:26 AM
AdamL1, I think you should go ahead and submit an application for your hives. I know this may seem silly. But I think it is the correct next step as the HOA likely prepares to go on the offense and you prepare your defense. I think it's a waste of time to fight the HOA's mere request for your application. Fight the (likely) rejection of your application.

Or do not rule out moving.




ha. moving is not an option.

Hmmm, so thoughts on defending against a denied application? That puts me as the aggressor, rather than just doing nothing and re-iterating the CCR's about nuisance and that no other member has submitted an ACC request for birdhouses, yard art, basketball hoops, patio furniture or bbq grills. Not engaging them puts them as the aggressor. Thoughts?
AugustinD


Posts:1585


09/01/2021 10:59 AM  
Posted By AdamL1 on 09/01/2021 10:47 AM
<
Hmmm, so thoughts on defending against a denied application? That puts me as the aggressor, rather than just doing nothing and re-iterating the CCR's about nuisance and that no other member has submitted an ACC request for birdhouses, yard art, basketball hoops, patio furniture or bbq grills. Not engaging them puts them as the aggressor. Thoughts?
With regard to the requirement to submit an application in advance of installing the "Improvement," the covenants are not ambiguous. So I opine that you should go ahead and submit the application.

That other owners may or may not have been required to submit an application is a discussion for a later date. All that matters right now is that you follow the covenant that requires submission of an application. Then, if denied, seek a hearing where you put on record all the ways your hive does comply pursuant to the following (from the covenant):

design and style elements, mass and form, topography, setbacks, finished ground elevations, architectural symmetry, drainage, color, materials, including mandatory wood shake roofing material, physical or aesthetic impacts on other properties, including Common Areas, artistic
conformity to the terrain and the other Improvements on the Property, and any and all other factors which the Architectural Committee, in its reasonable discretion, deem relevant. Said requirements as to the approval of the architectural design shall apply only to the exterior appearance of the
Improvements.


ND
(PA)

Posts:631


09/01/2021 11:00 AM  
A totally different thought . . .

Perhaps you can put in an application for a small shed-like structure in your yard that will instead serve as a beehive shelter or come up with some other sort of method to disguise your beehive (I googled and it is a thing).

You can tell the HOA that you will "relocate" your hives . . . and simply relocate them to a slightly different part of your yard within the "shed" that you construct or disguised as a large birdhouse or back-yard ornamental piece of yard art.
AdamL1
(Idaho)

Posts:109


09/01/2021 11:31 AM  
Posted By AugustinD on 09/01/2021 10:59 AM
Posted By AdamL1 on 09/01/2021 10:47 AM
<
Hmmm, so thoughts on defending against a denied application? That puts me as the aggressor, rather than just doing nothing and re-iterating the CCR's about nuisance and that no other member has submitted an ACC request for birdhouses, yard art, basketball hoops, patio furniture or bbq grills. Not engaging them puts them as the aggressor. Thoughts?
With regard to the requirement to submit an application in advance of installing the "Improvement," the covenants are not ambiguous. So I opine that you should go ahead and submit the application.

That other owners may or may not have been required to submit an application is a discussion for a later date. All that matters right now is that you follow the covenant that requires submission of an application. Then, if denied, seek a hearing where you put on record all the ways your hive does comply pursuant to the following (from the covenant):

design and style elements, mass and form, topography, setbacks, finished ground elevations, architectural symmetry, drainage, color, materials, including mandatory wood shake roofing material, physical or aesthetic impacts on other properties, including Common Areas, artistic
conformity to the terrain and the other Improvements on the Property, and any and all other factors which the Architectural Committee, in its reasonable discretion, deem relevant. Said requirements as to the approval of the architectural design shall apply only to the exterior appearance of the
Improvements.






hey AugustinD....anyway to direct message your or email you?
AugustinD


Posts:1585


09/01/2021 11:37 AM  
augustin1919[at]gmail[dot]com , as time and interest allow.

JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11422


09/01/2021 1:56 PM  
Posted By SheliaH on 09/01/2021 7:20 AM
Usually, when I hear structure, I think of sheds, swimming pools, cabanas, and that type of thing, but since you and I both know that beehive wasn't there when you bought your home, it could be argued this IS a structure. At least that would be my position, based on the photos I've seen of a beehive belonging to a now-retired co-worker (he has a small business selling honey).

This is really getting redundant, with you pulling this and that section out of your CCRs to justify your beehive. Everyone will have various opinions on the subject and I hope they're useful to you, but you really need to start preparing for your hearing with the board on this matter. We don't live in your community and it's high time you go to an attorney for help on making your arguments. While you're tussling on the legalities of it all, you might also consider some of the arguments against the thing some of your neighbors bought up during that annual meeting and come up with ways to address those concerns. Even if you think the board put them up to it, you'll need to address it nonetheless if you want to have a chance at succeeding.



Good advice.
JohnT38
(South Carolina)

Posts:729


09/01/2021 2:13 PM  
Looking forward to the next Bee Hive post with a new angle on how to get it approved. I wonder if the OP will ever consider hiring a knowledgeable lawyer instead of looking for a Hail Mary on this forum that will magically allow him/her to get their way?. At some point you either act or you don't.
AugustinD


Posts:1585


09/01/2021 2:26 PM  
I think the question du jour on the hives is whether the Board has dropped its complaint that the hives are a "nuisance" and now switched to another approach.
JohnT38
(South Carolina)

Posts:729


09/01/2021 2:52 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 09/01/2021 2:26 PM
I think the question du jour on the hives is whether the Board has dropped its complaint that the hives are a "nuisance" and now switched to another approach.




I don't doubt that at all. However, based on what has been said it appears the board has dug in their heels and right or wrong they are not inclined to back down. At this point, I seriously doubt if anything said on this forum will help change their mind. Hence my suggestion that it may be time to decide if the problem is worth a lawyer consult. Depending on what the lawyer says, the million dollar question is how much will it cost to be Bee-Keeper? It may very well end up being some very expensive honey.
AugustinD


Posts:1585


09/01/2021 3:00 PM  
Posted By JohnT38 on 09/01/2021 2:52 PM
Hence my suggestion that it may be time to decide if the problem is worth a lawyer consult. Depending on what the lawyer says, the million dollar question is how much will it cost to be Bee-Keeper? It may very well end up being some very expensive honey.
I agree.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11422


09/02/2021 9:59 AM  
Posted By JohnT38 on 09/01/2021 2:52 PM
Posted By AugustinD on 09/01/2021 2:26 PM
I think the question du jour on the hives is whether the Board has dropped its complaint that the hives are a "nuisance" and now switched to another approach.




I don't doubt that at all. However, based on what has been said it appears the board has dug in their heels and right or wrong they are not inclined to back down. At this point, I seriously doubt if anything said on this forum will help change their mind. Hence my suggestion that it may be time to decide if the problem is worth a lawyer consult. Depending on what the lawyer says, the million dollar question is how much will it cost to be Bee-Keeper? It may very well end up being some very expensive honey.



Good advice.
AdamL1
(Idaho)

Posts:109


09/02/2021 10:52 AM  
to update the conversation, I talked with an attorney recently...

His understanding and advice about "what is a structure" follows common sense and what the 'essence' of the CCR's say: fences, pools, landscaping, gates, etc. He advised that if challenged in court, the HOA would have an uphill battle trying to justify that a small wooden box placed in the corner of your backyard would qualify as a structure controlled by the ACC.

"all of the examples they give of structures are completely permanent in nature. They can't be removed without excavation of some kind. Unless you have "architectural designs," building plans, or some sort of foundation with your bee habitat, I can't imagine they could get away with convincing anyone that it was contemplated in that provision."
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11422


09/02/2021 11:07 AM  
Posted By AdamL1 on 09/02/2021 10:52 AM
to update the conversation, I talked with an attorney recently...

His understanding and advice about "what is a structure" follows common sense and what the 'essence' of the CCR's say: fences, pools, landscaping, gates, etc. He advised that if challenged in court, the HOA would have an uphill battle trying to justify that a small wooden box placed in the corner of your backyard would qualify as a structure controlled by the ACC.

"all of the examples they give of structures are completely permanent in nature. They can't be removed without excavation of some kind. Unless you have "architectural designs," building plans, or some sort of foundation with your bee habitat, I can't imagine they could get away with convincing anyone that it was contemplated in that provision."



What did you pay for this advice? Did you hire him to "fight" your HOA? Disregard anything from the HOA until they commence fining then go against them with an attorney,.
CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:2393


09/03/2021 8:15 AM  
Quote:

"all of the examples they give of structures are completely permanent in nature. They can't be removed without excavation of some kind. Unless you have "architectural designs," building plans, or some sort of foundation with your bee habitat, I can't imagine they could get away with convincing anyone that it was contemplated in that provision."

If this is the standard, how can a board reasonably enforce this language in the CC&R when a homeowner ignores the ARC guidelines and puts up whatever it is without permission? Is it "reasonable" to tell a homeowner to bring in bulldozers and dump trucks and get rid of that sucker? Or beyond a certain dollar amount, do homeowners have a Get Out of Jail Free card?

It's one thing to tell somebody to repaint, but this is a whole lot more involved.

Inquiring minds want to know.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11422


09/03/2021 8:30 AM  
Posted By CathyA3 on 09/03/2021 8:15 AM
Quote:

"all of the examples they give of structures are completely permanent in nature. They can't be removed without excavation of some kind. Unless you have "architectural designs," building plans, or some sort of foundation with your bee habitat, I can't imagine they could get away with convincing anyone that it was contemplated in that provision."

If this is the standard, how can a board reasonably enforce this language in the CC&R when a homeowner ignores the ARC guidelines and puts up whatever it is without permission? Is it "reasonable" to tell a homeowner to bring in bulldozers and dump trucks and get rid of that sucker? Or beyond a certain dollar amount, do homeowners have a Get Out of Jail Free card?

It's one thing to tell somebody to repaint, but this is a whole lot more involved.

Inquiring minds want to know.



Adam has a target painted on his back by the BOD so they keep going after him. I am not supporting Adam as I believe there could be concern about bee hives in residential areas but that said, the BOD is acting like children.
CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:2393


09/03/2021 10:10 AM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 09/03/2021 8:30 AM
Posted By CathyA3 on 09/03/2021 8:15 AM
Quote:

"all of the examples they give of structures are completely permanent in nature. They can't be removed without excavation of some kind. Unless you have "architectural designs," building plans, or some sort of foundation with your bee habitat, I can't imagine they could get away with convincing anyone that it was contemplated in that provision."

If this is the standard, how can a board reasonably enforce this language in the CC&R when a homeowner ignores the ARC guidelines and puts up whatever it is without permission? Is it "reasonable" to tell a homeowner to bring in bulldozers and dump trucks and get rid of that sucker? Or beyond a certain dollar amount, do homeowners have a Get Out of Jail Free card?

It's one thing to tell somebody to repaint, but this is a whole lot more involved.

Inquiring minds want to know.



Adam has a target painted on his back by the BOD so they keep going after him. I am not supporting Adam as I believe there could be concern about bee hives in residential areas but that said, the BOD is acting like children.



Oh, I agree - I was just asking a hypothetical/general question. I try to get everything to link up in a consistent whole, and if I see a piece of info that doesn't appear to fit, it makes me nuts until I reconcile the contradiction. Useful in a number of lines of work, a bit of a nuisance otherwise. :-)
MaxB4


Posts:1211


09/03/2021 10:15 AM  
California has a new-found love of pot, marijuana, mary janes, whatever you want to call it.

When Adam first asked for help, I looked up how the State of Idaho, regards bees and people who raise them. Apparently, they like bees like we like pot, so I would take that into consideration.
AugustinD


Posts:1585


09/03/2021 11:19 AM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 09/03/2021 8:30 AM
Adam has a target painted on his back by the BOD so they keep going after him. I am not supporting Adam as I believe there could be concern about bee hives in residential areas but that said, the BOD is acting like children.
It turns out that there are other restrictions that may be playing a role here. They have given me pause. It's up to the OP if he wants to elaborate.
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > What is a "structure" to an HOA?



Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.







General Legal Notice:  The content of forum messages are from the posting member and have not been reviewed nor endorsed by HOATalk.com.  Messages posted by HOATalk or other members are for informational purposes only, are not legal or professional advice and do not constitute an attorney-client relationship.  Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.  HOATalk is not a licensed attorney, CPA, tax advisor, financial advisor or any other licensed professional.  HOATalk accepts ads from sponsors but does not verify sponsor qualifications nor endorse/guarantee any sponsor's product or service.
Legal Notice For Messages Posted by Sponsoring Attorneys: This message has been prepared by the sponsoring attorney for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send any sponsoring attorney confidential information unless you speak with the sponsoring attorney or an attorney from the sponsoring attorney’s firm and get authorization to send that information to them. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in the firm of the sponsoring attorney. Sponsoring attorneys that post messages here are licensed to practice law in a specific state or states as indicated in their message signature or sponsor’s profile page. (NOTE: A ‘sponsoring attorney’ is an attorney that is a HOATalk.com official sponsor and is identified as such in the posted message or on our sponsor page.)

Copyright HOA Talk.com, A Service of Community123 LLC ( Homeowners Association Discussions )   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement